MLS to affiliate with USL PRO clubs

Just another attempt to mask the truth. Why is the NASL not involved with this great American experiment? So the majority of the USL club's are good enough, for five MLS player's to play in USL game's, but not good enough for USL team's to be in a pro/rel pyramid.
Something smells funny here.

Just another attempt to mask the truth. Why is the NASL not involved with this great American experiment? So the majority of the USL club's are good enough, for five MLS player's to play in USL game's, but not good enough for USL team's to be in a pro/rel pyramid.
Something smells funny here.

Click to expand...

There is no US pro/rel pyramid. Probably never will be. It's a financial decision. Odds are that if England was making a new soccer league today, there would be no pro/rel there either.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make here...
From what have heard so far, it sounds like the USL is humble (or greedy) enough to embrace the minor league mentality and the NASL is not. Nobody important has openly said one league is better than the other, quite frankly because there is no real evidence that either is better than the other. Both draw from the same pool of MLS washouts and never-weres. Neither is putting out sides that could challenge Chivas USA on a weekly basis. Both are definitely below MLS in every way possible.
NASL is only D2 because USSF says so, and even that is up for review on an annual basis.
Keep in mind that I am not favoring USL over NASL or vice versa. I'm just pointing out the reality.

There is no US pro/rel pyramid. Probably never will be. It's a financial decision. Odds are that if England was making a new soccer league today, there would be no pro/rel there either.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make here...
From what have heard so far, it sounds like the USL is humble (or greedy) enough to embrace the minor league mentality and the NASL is not. Nobody important has openly said one league is better than the other, quite frankly because there is no real evidence that either is better than the other. Both draw from the same pool of MLS washouts and never-weres. Neither is putting out sides that could challenge Chivas USA on a weekly basis. Both are definitely below MLS in every way possible.
NASL is only D2 because USSF says so, and even that is up for review on an annual basis.
Keep in mind that I am not favoring USL over NASL or vice versa. I'm just pointing out the reality.

Click to expand...

First of all, you mention the English. What is holding back the English from creating a league with no Pro/REL? Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool and a host of other presumed in America, big named clubs could surely create a new league s as we call it hear, "protect it's investment" as the MLS owner's are doing. The reason why that will never happen in England and other European nations or South American nations, is because it would be disastrous for the domestic game overall in the said country. Soccer would collapse as we know it today. It would very much resemble how soccer is in the United States, Canada and Australia.Oh, let us not forget, that three of MLS's top club's are in Canada. With out the Canadian influence in regard to attendance, we can figure the rest out.
Like you said, the USSF dictates everything. Anyway, if I was the owner of the Rhino's or any other USL- pro team, would I take this deal? I would probably ask the MLS for the cash instead of five players, than I would be open to this reserve team competition.

There is no US pro/rel pyramid. Probably never will be. It's a financial decision. Odds are that if England was making a new soccer league today, there would be no pro/rel there either.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make here...
From what have heard so far, it sounds like the USL is humble (or greedy) enough to embrace the minor league mentality and the NASL is not. Nobody important has openly said one league is better than the other, quite frankly because there is no real evidence that either is better than the other. Both draw from the same pool of MLS washouts and never-weres. Neither is putting out sides that could challenge Chivas USA on a weekly basis. Both are definitely below MLS in every way possible.
NASL is only D2 because USSF says so, and even that is up for review on an annual basis.
Keep in mind that I am not favoring USL over NASL or vice versa. I'm just pointing out the reality.

Click to expand...

I would say that from top to bottom NASL is the better league then USL-Pro. Yes Orlando , Rochester, and Charleston can compete with the NASL teams but Dayton, LA, and teams like that could not.

USL Pro has some teams that have been established and that you could say are in far, far less danger of disappearing tomorrow than, say, Edmonton or Atlanta. It also has some teams that nobody would be surprised to see go poof next week.

NASL has done very well to stop the bleeding that marked the second division post-2000 (USSF standards have helped a bit there), and they have some solid teams, too.

You could very likely make decent second and third divisions out of the 28 or so teams between the two leagues, but you would probably have teams from both current leagues at each level.

I might be missing your point but I don't see how that "forces" a team out. Its not like MLS is buying the USL clubs and an affiliation could just be the MLS team providing the USL team a bag of practice balls.

Click to expand...

I had earlier speculated about whether teams not close to an MLS team would be allowed to affiliate with a distant team, allowed to remain an independence, or (as I said before, highly unlikely) forced out in favor of a USL entirely consisted of teams in close proximity to MLS clubs.

My guess is the distant affiliations. Admittedly, the reserve side option should assure we see nothing as absurd as some of the west coast NHL squads' AHL affiliations (La Kings affiliate in NH, Sharks affiliate in Worcester, MA, etc.)

USL Pro has some teams that have been established and that you could say are in far, far less danger of disappearing tomorrow than, say, Edmonton or Atlanta. It also has some teams that nobody would be surprised to see go poof next week.

NASL has done very well to stop the bleeding that marked the second division post-2000 (USSF standards have helped a bit there), and they have some solid teams, too.

You could very likely make decent second and third divisions out of the 28 or so teams between the two leagues, but you would probably have teams from both current leagues at each level.

Click to expand...

Wow! Positive comments about both the USL and NASL. Watch out! This kind of reasoned thinking could get you banned around here.

By the way, can we have a minor league thread around here without someone dragging it into the realm of pro/rel? A miracle, I know, but it is Christmas.

First, wishing a missionary organization failure in their attempt to convert more people to their particular religion is not bigotry.

Second, any club in professional soccer should be a soccer team first and foremost, not an arm of their proselytizing or marketing. It should be offensive to anyone who loves the sport. It would be no different if they were the arm of an atheist organization, a Jewish organization, a Hindu organization, or a corporation using the team merely for marketing.

Could this move be incentive for some of the PDL teams to jump up, especially given that 5 of their players will be paid for? Could make sense for Vancouver to affiliate with Victoria, Seattle with Kitsap etc

Could this move be incentive for some of the PDL teams to jump up, especially given that 5 of their players will be paid for? Could make sense for Vancouver to affiliate with Victoria, Seattle with Kitsap etc

Click to expand...

One issue with Victoria (or even, the TOR, MTL, VAN reserves) joining the league. Won't CSA have to sanction the USL as a 2nd D3 league (alongside the CSL) and, if they do, is there any chance they give it a limited/provisional sanctioning that only allows direct reserve squads of Canadian MLS clubs and not separately-operated affiliates to join USL-Pro from Canada?

First thing that came to my mind when I heard this was if most USL-PRO owners would even be happy with this? Sure, it helps to save a tremendous amount of cost (salaries), but if they are even just a little bit ambitious, would they really like someone telling them, who's going to be on the roster and probably also putting some pressure on who to field in the games. Please, correct me if I'm wrong since I am not that familiar with how the US minor league system usually works.

I was actually wondering if this would make some USL-PRO teams with higher ambitions consider to actually move to NASL instead of manifesting the perception of being a minor league team (even if that's actually the case anyway).

One issue with Victoria (or even, the TOR, MTL, VAN reserves) joining the league. Won't CSA have to sanction the USL as a 2nd D3 league (alongside the CSL) and, if they do, is there any chance they give it a limited/provisional sanctioning that only allows direct reserve squads of Canadian MLS clubs and not separately-operated affiliates to join USL-Pro from Canada?

First thing that came to my mind when I heard this was if most USL-PRO owners would even be happy with this? Sure, it helps to save a tremendous amount of cost (salaries), but if they are even just a little bit ambitious, would they really like someone telling them, who's going to be on the roster and probably also putting some pressure on who to field in the games. Please, correct me if I'm wrong since I am not that familiar with how the US minor league system usually works.

I was actually wondering if this would make some USL-PRO teams with higher ambitions consider to actually move to NASL instead of manifesting the perception of being a minor league team (even if that's actually the case anyway).

Click to expand...

It depends on the sport. In baseball, the entire team is under contract to the parent club. The same is usually true in the AHL (2nd tier hockey), although a few bottom of the roster players may nominally be under contract to the AHL club only. Lower tier hockey affiliations are closer to what affiliated USL-Pro clubs will be having to deal with (a few players under contract to the parent club, but most players under the control of the minor league club). D-League basketball is more complicated than I can explain here in re: to contract status of players and american football and lacrosse have no professional developmental systems - although there are some avenues for football players who fall through the cracks to get a second shot at the NFL (Canada, Arena/Indoor football, training camp invites), while major league lacrosse is pretty much a matter of being good enough coming out of college.

First thing that came to my mind when I heard this was if most USL-PRO owners would even be happy with this? Sure, it helps to save a tremendous amount of cost (salaries), but if they are even just a little bit ambitious, would they really like someone telling them, who's going to be on the roster and probably also putting some pressure on who to field in the games. Please, correct me if I'm wrong since I am not that familiar with how the US minor league system usually works.
.

Click to expand...

considering that the USL board of governors (each team's owner or his appointee is a member of the board) would have to approve, I imagine most the owners are okay with the affiliation.

The key word is "affiliation" What that actually entails is what everyone wants to know. It could just be a bag of balls or it could be technical support, marketing partnerships, friendlies, exclusive loans, opportunities for USL players. I understand that we might get some more info in the new year.

But I cant see any of the current USL Pro teams moving to NASL. they are where they are mainly due to finances and the lower cost. Having MLS pay the five salaries of players could be a big help to most teams, not to mention the potential increase in teams that would allow the league to help create a even more regional division with in the league, potentially reducing travel distances.

Also, the USL has had an agreement with MLS between 1996 to 2000. I imagine both leagues would like to avoid the same mistakes and issues that were part of that agreement.

If anything I could see it making the possibility of some of the PDL teams that have been rumored to have USL Pro ambitions make the move sooner.

considering that the USL board of governors (each team's owner or his appointee is a member of the board) would have to approve, I imagine most the owners are okay with the affiliation.

The key word is "affiliation" What that actually entails is what everyone wants to know. It could just be a bag of balls or it could be technical support, marketing partnerships, friendlies, exclusive loans, opportunities for USL players. I understand that we might get some more info in the new year.

But I cant see any of the current USL Pro teams moving to NASL. they are where they are mainly due to finances and the lower cost. Having MLS pay the five salaries of players could be a big help to most teams, not to mention the potential increase in teams that would allow the league to help create a even more regional division with in the league, potentially reducing travel distances.

Also, the USL has had an agreement with MLS between 1996 to 2000. I imagine both leagues would like to avoid the same mistakes and issues that were part of that agreement.

If anything I could see it making the possibility of some of the PDL teams that have been rumored to have USL Pro ambitions make the move sooner.

Click to expand...

It sounds like the affiliation will, at it's core, entail five players being assigned from the MLS team to the USL-Pro team.

But that is only for teams close to MLS teams according to what was reported. the rest of the teams will have an affiliation but that is what is still up in the air

Click to expand...

The Start-up MLS reserve squads playing in USL pro are going to be interesting too.... part of me wonders even if there isn't a team nearby some MLS teams will opt not to create a team and instead send 5 players essentially on a full season USL-pro loan and utilize the association between leagues that way... Example: Colorado sends 5 players on loan to Charlotte for the USL season, and gets them back at the end of the season.

What got me thinking of thinking of this is essentially the Union did this on a smaller scale at the end of the season last year.... early in the season Hoffman and Hoppenot were loaned to Harrisburg VERY short term for a few days that covered 2 games... but later in the season McLaughlin and Jordan were loaned out, and ultimately ended up having the loan extended through the end of the season and picked up 7/8 games... I could definitely see a situation next year arise where McLaughlin, Jordan, and three other players are loaned out from the start of the season all the way through the end.... and a situation like that wouldn't necessarily require teams being nearby.

That entire article was the kind of thinking out loud that used to be done before someone would write and publish a piece. Usually at the end, you'd say to yourself, "Nah, there's not enough there to go on."

In 2012, unfortunately, you just take all the random thoughts and put them on a blog and there you go. Inchoate or not, there are people out there who need content.